The Forgotten Man

[Rip]

The State, it cannot be too often repeated, does nothing and can give nothing which it does not take from somebody. The Forgotten Man works and votes--generally he prays--but his chief business in life is to pay. - William Sumner - "The Forgotten Man" (1883)

Does nothing?

What? We all know we took the moon from somebody. Probably those poor guys they sliced up at Roswell.

[silverjon]

Who's crying there? A supreme court justice?

Whoever the artist is, he's a great satirist.

Yeah, from a description I read, and he's weeping over Roe vs. Wade.

Also in that corner, an unwed mother, a Darwinist, the liberal media, annnnd SATAN!

[Isgrimnur]

Who's crying there? A supreme court justice?

Whoever the artist is, he's a great satirist.

Yeah, from a description I read, and he's weeping over Roe vs. Wade.

Roe v. Wade, Everson v. Board of Education, Marbury v. Madison, Gibbons v. Ogden, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, Kelo vs. New London

[Smoove_B]

The artist did create a video with some commentary on what the picture means as well as a link to some follow-up work from 2011.

"I've hidden six keys in the paintings that explain the solutions to our problem..."

I smell a Dan Brown novel coming.

[Lagom Lite]

Honest Abe looks like an action hero in that painting. Love it.

"What about HIM, motherfucker?!!"

[GreenGoo]

Even better.

The State, it cannot be too often repeated, does nothing and can give nothing which it does not take from somebody. The Forgotten Man works and votes--generally he prays--but his chief business in life is to pay. - William Sumner - "The Forgotten Man" (1883)

And to receive in return, of course.

[GreenGoo]

Honest Abe looks like an action hero in that painting. Love it.

"What about HIM, motherfucker?!!"

Anyone who's read Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter knows what a badass he really was.

[Hipolito]

Lincoln: Are you seriously not betting on the game tomorrow?
Washington: You're making Tom Brady cry!
Madison: My brackets!

Mom: Lawrence, don't put your boogers on the nice man's Constitution.

[Zarathud]

The State, it cannot be too often repeated, does nothing and can give nothing which it does not take from somebody. The Forgotten Man works and votes--generally he prays--but his chief business in life is to pay. - William Sumner - "The Forgotten Man" (1883)

Does nothing?

What? We all know we took the moon from somebody. Probably those poor guys they sliced up at Roswell.

"Whatever is not nailed down is mine. Whatever I can pry up is not nailed down." - Collis P. Huntington, railroad tycoon

[Grifman]

I did not put forward a "solution", nor am I proposing anything beyond offering a rational hypothesis of a political perspective that may differ from your own. I was simply addressing your question as to why Republicans might oppose a bureaucracy intended to help protect consumers from financial wheeling and dealing.

You're being disingenuous. You're putting forth a "hypothesis" that because certain govt agencies have failed in the past, that despite there being a problem (financial wheeling and dealing), another govt agency is not warranted because it might fail. The problem is is that this is true of every govt agency, currently existing or proposed - at any time one of them might fail also. Logically, if we shouldn't start any new agencies because of potential failure, then we should get rid of all agencies for the same reason.

If you choose to conflate that into believing that Republicans -- or I, despite the fact that I am not a Republican -- wish to do away with every government regulatory agency, that's your prerogative (though even the most moronic observer of history could see the flaw in that particular premise).

And if you are unable to follow your argument to its logical conclusion, that's your prerogative

[Grifman]

The State, it cannot be too often repeated, does nothing and can give nothing which it does not take from somebody. The Forgotten Man works and votes--generally he prays--but his chief business in life is to pay. - William Sumner - "The Forgotten Man" (1883)

Does nothing?

You have to read the entire sentence ogether. It doesn't say that the state does nothing, it says that the state does nothing "which it does not take from somebody". In other words, the state has no resources of its own, they have to come from someone.

[msduncan]

My immediate interpretation wasn't that the man on the bench (in the Obama stomp the constitution painting, not the Jesus hands us the Constitution) was saddened over the loss of freedom, not saddened over his economic or social state.

I saw Grifman make a comment about Republicans giving a damn about the 'common man' and it immediately hit me that he was interpreting the man saddened over nobody caring about his financial or family struggles. It compelled me to point out that I interpreted it entirely differently, having the man in my mind being more concerned about the welfare of this nation's freedoms and not his own particular welfare.

[silverjon]

Well, McNaughton does appear to like to post up stuff about exactly what his work is intended to convey, so is there a personal explanation of that painting somewhere?

[Austin]

Sheep on his right, goats on his left. How come Ben Franklin gets to be up there? Couldn't he be the unwed mother's baby daddy?

[Kraken]

How come Ben Franklin gets to be up there? Couldn't he be the unwed mother's baby daddy?

As Firesign Theater told us, he was the only President of the United States who was never President of the United States.

[Alefroth]

His suit is very black.

Ale

[tgb]

How come Ben Franklin gets to be up there? Couldn't he be the unwed mother's baby daddy?

As Firesign Theater told us, he was the only President of the United States who was never President of the United States.

More sugar!

[raydude]

Looking at the 2nd painting. Is....is that an asian dude in the bottom left corner? And is he cowering as if to say "Oh snap! That Jesus dude is more powerful than Buddha?" Oh Hellz No!

[tgb]

Looking at the 2nd painting. Is....is that an asian dude in the bottom left corner? And is he cowering as if to say "Oh snap! That Jesus dude is more powerful than Buddha?" Oh Hellz No!

Isn't he?

[baelthazar]

Wow... Those paintings have a creative view of historical figures. And WTF is the creepy hag-face at the right (with the people who hate the constitution and Jesus - like businessmen, federal judges, and unwed pregnant women)? Also, apparently Union soldiers hate Jesus but Vietnam and WWI soldiers do not?

[RunningMn9]

Republicans care about the individual, not broad stereotypes and artificial class constructs.

I really don't understand how this myth perpetuates, despite all available evidence pointing to the contrary. You might reasonably try to make the argument that the Republicans in your own life care about the individual and not broad stereotypes and artificial class constructs. But the problem is that they keep voting for people that do nothing of the sort (they care nothing for the individual, and continuously perpetuate broad stereotypes and artificial class constructs). So even while in their own hearts they might be well-meaning, they've handed the country over to a class of Republican politicians that does nothing towards those ends. And they (the Republicans in your own life) should be held accountable for that.

They also understand that businesses are the ones who hire the common man, and choking the lifeblood of business puts the common man out of work.

Their interest is in gaming the system to benefit Corporate America, not just "businesses". And it has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you game the system enough for Corporate America (we have), then of course Corporate America will be the ones that hire the common man. But it's not clear that A) this is the only way that it can be; or B) that Corporate America can't find a way to exist and make a profit when the system isn't setup solely for their benefit.

Somehow we managed to handle all this before the rise of Corporate America.

While I would love to believe in an American utopia where everybody receives the same salary of one million dollars a year from owning a small business and cars run on liquid optimism, it's not reality.

It's a good thing that you, as a modern and enlightened Republican, doesn't believe in broad stereotypes and artificial class constructs.

But at the same time you say that, you also talk about an equally unrealistic American utopia where everyone has the same opportunities, the same starting point, and where success in life is simply a function of hard work.

Some people can't handle reality and the idea they have to actually expend effort to make something of themselves

And other people can't handle reality and the idea that "expending effort" is rarely the missing ingredient for success. Where you start the game (accident of birth) and opportunity are much better indicators of whether or not someone will be successful or not. I mean seriously.

and for those people the Democratic party offers a steady drip of morphine.

Again with the broad stereotypes and artificial class constructs?

Republicans are "evil" because they're not spoon-feeding the masses some feel-good pap that has no basis in real life.

Republicans are "evil" because they continuously advocate for the people that are laying off the "masses". Which has a pretty goddamn big basis in real life.

The notion that successful people are bad, and that you are not successful because society is "keeping you down" through no fault of your own is an appealing message.

No one is suggesting that successful people are "bad", any more than we are suggesting that successful people should be punished for being successful. While it's true that SOME successful people are successful because they are "bad" (ruthless sociopaths willing to step on or over anyone around them and who are of questionable moral character, or the Wall Street community), that's the not the point. Democrats don't want to tax the rich to punish them. They want to tax the rich because the govt needs more revenue, and the rich are the only people that have any money.

I spent 10 years working for my previous employer, observing a dozen rounds of layoffs. The first round, you could arguably say that those people lost their jobs through a fault of their own. Maybe a few in the second round. After that? The people that lost their jobs and got thrown into major financial distress didn't do so because of their own fault. It wasn't a failure to plan properly. It wasn't a failure to work hard enough. It was just the cosmic misfortune of having been assigned to a project that management temporarily thought they could do with out (and so everyone one it, regardless of skill, was terminated). You can't tell those people (with a straight face) that THEY are the problem. That their sudden inability to provide an income to their families is THEIR fault.

It's not their fault. When their house goes into default because their savings was eroded by 18 months of having their paycheck cut by 10%, it's hard to argue that it's their fault after a spreadsheet somewhere dictated that their income be reduced by the final 90%.

This isn't 1780 anymore where 95+% of the population is self-employed with their destiny in their own hands. Most of us can wake up tomorrow, and have a guy in a suit just decide to financially destroy your life because a spreadsheet tells him that it will be better for the company bottom line in the short term. It has nothing to do with hard work, and you're a fool if you believe that it does.

It's human nature to blame everyone but yourself for your problems, and Democrats exploit that idea at every opportunity.

You're not a stupid guy. I assume that you understand that in 2012, lots of really bad things can happen to a person or family that they aren't to blame for. And preaching a message of "it's human nature to blame everyone but yourself for your problems" implies that these problems are really their own fault - which is bullshit in many cases. The problem is that it's also human nature to believe that other humans are screwing them over and cheating the system without consequence so they don't have to work hard like you do - and Republicans exploit that idea at every opportunity.

It's the same phenomenon you see when you poll people about Congress. Everyone has a universal hatred for the US Congress. Except for their own Congressman. They always seem to be doing a good job. It's everybody else that is the problem.

It's the same phenomenon you see when you poll people about Education. Everyone seems to think that the Education system is in shambles and is eroding away at what makes this country great. Except their own school is fantastic. It's everybody else that is the problem.

Republicans thrive on the "everyone else is to blame!!" phenomenon as well. They just swap out "Corporate America" and replace it with "Liberals" or "Democrats", and the Republican masses lap it up just as religiously.

As for who really cares about the downtrodden, go do some Google searching on whether conservatives or liberals are more charitable. The answer may surprise you.

Charitable donations aren't necessarily the right benchmark for "who really cares about the downtrodden". There are plenty of cases where that's just a good benchmark for "who has the most money and has a better understanding of how to reduce their own tax burden". If I want to see who really cares about the downtrodden - it's probably more effective to look at who is actually advocating for them, and who is dismissing them and blaming them for being in their circumstances.

My advice to Republicans is simple. Please find some candidates that actually believe in the things that you believe in.

[Holman]

Wow... Those paintings have a creative view of historical figures. And WTF is the creepy hag-face at the right (with the people who hate the constitution and Jesus - like businessmen, federal judges, and unwed pregnant women)? Also, apparently Union soldiers hate Jesus but Vietnam and WWI soldiers do not?

I think the Union soldier is weeping with gratitude for his Savior. As I read the allegory, everyone standing behind Jesus is saved and in American Heaven. Those still in front of Jesus are still alive, but obviously divided between the righteous and the unrighteous.

I need Visine now.

[silverjon]

Further to Holman's explanation, you need to take into account who is facing Jesus and who is turned away.

[Freezer-TPF-]

What RM9 said.

[Grifman]

What RM9 said.

Really excellent post on his part. What I tried to feebly say via some legislative examples but he really nailed it. Bravo!

[YellowKing]

I really don't understand how this myth perpetuates, despite all available evidence pointing to the contrary. You might reasonably try to make the argument that the Republicans in your own life care about the individual and not broad stereotypes and artificial class constructs. But the problem is that they keep voting for people that do nothing of the sort (they care nothing for the individual, and continuously perpetuate broad stereotypes and artificial class constructs). So even while in their own hearts they might be well-meaning, they've handed the country over to a class of Republican politicians that does nothing towards those ends. And they (the Republicans in your own life) should be held accountable for that.

Class warfare is a talking point of every Democratic politician I've ever seen. It's a game of turning people against one another based on socio-economic status. Democrats will have you think that because Republicans aren't actively attacking the wealthy, that they don't care about anyone else but the wealthy. When in fact, Republicans are simply not engaging in socio-economic class categorization at all. The real irony is that multi-millionaire Democratic politicians have somehow convinced people that they are a magical exclusion to that "wealthiest 1%" even as they vote for pay raises every year and fly around on their corporate jets.

Their interest is in gaming the system to benefit Corporate America, not just "businesses". And it has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you game the system enough for Corporate America (we have), then of course Corporate America will be the ones that hire the common man. But it's not clear that A) this is the only way that it can be; or B) that Corporate America can't find a way to exist and make a profit when the system isn't setup solely for their benefit.

You're complaining about capitalism, not conservatism.

But at the same time you say that, you also talk about an equally unrealistic American utopia where everyone has the same opportunities, the same starting point, and where success in life is simply a function of hard work.

Redistribution of wealth is not the answer to everybody not having the same opportunity. Taking from people who worked hard and giving it to people who didn't is not a solution. Giving people no incentive to work because the government will hand them everything they need for free is not a viable long-term solution. While nobody will ever have the same opportunity, we can strive to give everyone as much opportunity as possible.

And other people can't handle reality and the idea that "expending effort" is rarely the missing ingredient for success. Where you start the game (accident of birth) and opportunity are much better indicators of whether or not someone will be successful or not. I mean seriously.

Right. Which is why we should strive to give as many people as many opportunities as possible. Nobody is arguing that where we are today is the perfect jumping off point for everyone to have the exact same opportunity.

Again with the broad stereotypes and artificial class constructs?

What, generalizations against the Republican party are OK but generalizations against the Democratic party aren't?

Republicans are "evil" because they continuously advocate for the people that are laying off the "masses". Which has a pretty goddamn big basis in real life.

News flash. Democrats lay off people too! That's a function of capitalism and economics, not politics. And guess what? Those evil corporations that Republicans advocate hire and provide paychecks for FAR more people than they lay off.

This isn't 1780 anymore where 95+% of the population is self-employed with their destiny in their own hands. Most of us can wake up tomorrow, and have a guy in a suit just decide to financially destroy your life because a spreadsheet tells him that it will be better for the company bottom line in the short term. It has nothing to do with hard work, and you're a fool if you believe that it does.

No, it has to do with capitalism and economics. Bad stuff happens to good people. Life sucks. It's not the fault of Republicans that businesses want to make money. There isn't any Republican party in other countries, but somehow corporations still exist in other countries. People still get laid off in other countries. It's not like if all Republicans dropped out of politics, corporations would magically stop trying to make money - and in the interest of making money, laying off people they no longer needed.

You're not a stupid guy. I assume that you understand that in 2012, lots of really bad things can happen to a person or family that they aren't to blame for.

Yeah, but why are you blaming only Republicans? Why aren't you blaming wealthy Democrats flying around in their corporate jets? Why are you still buying appliances and cars from corporate America instead of growing your own food and riding around in a horse and buggy? You're lashing out at a system that has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans, and pinning blame on a single political party for the weaknesses of a capitalistic modern society?

Charitable donations aren't necessarily the right benchmark for "who really cares about the downtrodden". There are plenty of cases where that's just a good benchmark for "who has the most money and has a better understanding of how to reduce their own tax burden". If I want to see who really cares about the downtrodden - it's probably more effective to look at who is actually advocating for them, and who is dismissing them and blaming them for being in their circumstances.

Advocating for them out of the goodness of their hearts, or because they need the votes? We can play the "intentions" game all day long, and in the end we can't prove anything either way. The only thing we can prove is cold hard statistics, and those statistics show that conservatives are more charitable.

[malchior]

Class warfare is a talking point of every Democratic politician I've ever seen. It's a game of turning people against one another based on socioeconomic status. Democrats will have you think that because Republicans aren't actively attacking the wealthy, that they don't care about anyone else but the wealthy. When in fact, Republicans are simply not engaging in socio-economic class categorization at all.

Republican speech is carefully constructed and uses phrases and ideas that make socioeconomic status a key part of their message. Job creators. 50% don't pay taxes. Welfare queens. These are all constantly reinforced by Republican speech. Both parties engage in it but you could be letting party loyalty blind you if you think the Republicans don't categorize at all.

Redistribution of wealth is not the answer to everybody not having the same opportunity. Taking from people who worked hard and giving it to people who didn't is not a solution. Giving people no incentive to work because the government will hand them everything they need for free is not a viable long-term solution. While nobody will ever have the same opportunity, we can strive to give everyone as much opportunity as possible.

The wealth redistribution game: this is a prime example of a current Republican talking point which is ridiculous when you look at what is actually happening with wealth in this country. There is a ton of data suggesting wealth redistribution is happening. It is has little to do with the government and is almost completely upward to a very small percentage (the 0.1%). Other groups are doing well below that threshold as well but their gains have been pretty modest in comparison. Republicans are on the front-lines of protecting all the taxes exemptions and loopholes that enable this from the Government side. The Democrats have been all too happy to not really doing anything meaningful to stop it either--they too have keep the re-election coffers full somehow!--aside from taking the opportunity to spin it into political hay.

Also, I don't think anyone--well nearly anyone--is suggesting the government hands everyone what they need for free. That is another Republican strawman that appeals to identifying a particular socioeconomic status.

Advocating for them out of the goodness of their hearts, or because they need the votes? We can play the "intentions" game all day long, and in the end we can't prove anything either way. The only thing we can prove is cold hard statistics, and those statistics show that conservatives are more charitable.

This is another one of those weird Republican created facts. Maybe it is because very few people self-identify as liberal. If you believe firms like Rasmussen, there are fewer liberals than EVER now. Anyway, it smacks of another talking point meant to distract and divide rather than inform.

[Anonymous Bosch]

You're being disingenuous. You're putting forth a "hypothesis" that because certain govt agencies have failed in the past, that despite there being a problem (financial wheeling and dealing), another govt agency is not warranted because it might fail. The problem is is that this is true of every govt agency, currently existing or proposed - at any time one of them might fail also. Logically, if we shouldn't start any new agencies because of potential failure, then we should get rid of all agencies for the same reason.

No, you are being deliberately obtuse. I used the example of the SEC as one possible reason that Republicans may not necessarily agree with you that another federal bureaucracy is needed to help protect consumers from financial wheeling and dealing. But you're so hidebound, that rather than acknowledge the possibility of someone with a different political perspective to yours believing a certain degree of skepticism may be warranted over the creation of another federal bureaucracy, you instead choose to misrepresent that position as an absurdly simplistic extreme argument in favour of doing away with all forms of public regulation.

And if you are unable to follow your argument to its logical conclusion, that's your prerogative

That was neither my argument, nor its logical conclusion; that's you, choosing to ignore what was actually stated, and instead substituting an exaggerated, distorted version of it, i.e. creating a blatantly obvious strawman.

[ichbinunique]

This is a fascinating find, so thanks for sharing it.

With the forgotten man one it's very interesting to see how presidents are ranked, I'm also intrigued at some level that he opted to depict Franklin Roosevelt standing, and that Obama is not only noticeably taller than other presidents but also the most distorted (his legs are much longer than the others), that he has the darkest suit and the only pure red tie.

I realize it's an attack piece, but I have to say I find it the most pleasant attack piece I've seen in some time. Perhaps we could amend election rules so that political ads are required to use artistic symbolism to demonstrate a candidates superiority. It has a certain graceful theatricality that seems to be missing from our political sphere.

[Zarathud]

The painting reflects the biases of its creator and viewers more than any social commentary. You have to make assumptions about the "forgotten man" and the reason why the constitution and other legislation is blowing around with money. Anyway, you can't even judge the reaction of most of the Presidents depicted. It's not like Nixon is better than Obama, although Nixon is giving the evil eye behind Obama's back.

As for who really cares about the downtrodden, go do some Google searching on whether conservatives or liberals are more charitable. The answer may surprise you.

Charitable donations aren't necessarily the right benchmark for "who really cares about the downtrodden". There are plenty of cases where that's just a good benchmark for "who has the most money and has a better understanding of how to reduce their own tax burden". If I want to see who really cares about the downtrodden - it's probably more effective to look at who is actually advocating for them, and who is dismissing them and blaming them for being in their circumstances.

The value of charitable service is worthless when determining charitable donations. I spend many hours on pro bono or non-fee work that is entirely worthless when determining charitable donations. Is the $10,000 worth of work I do to set up a charity worth less than its first $10,000 cash donation? Is it more than someone who contributes $10,000 to his or her own temple/church? The statistics you're quoting aren't very useful except to confirm biases.

[Arcanis]

I guess I'm the only one who noticed the Tree of Gondor on Jesus. That was personal favorite part.

[Chrisoc13]

For Gondor!

Interesting note from the artist:

McNaughton explained his position behind the painting. “I don’t place all the blame on Obama. On my website I try to explain what each president has done,” he said.

The painting does not seem to show that very well though.

[RunningMn9]

Class warfare is a talking point of every Democratic politician I've ever seen. It's a game of turning people against one another based on socio-economic status.

I don't understand how you think that is one-sided. As has already been pointed out to you - the Republican party uses it's own artificial socio-economic status constructs to engage in the class warfare every bit as much as Democrats.

But that's just you moving the goal posts. We weren't talking about what Democrats do. We were talking about your assertion that Republicans *don't* do things like this, which is an absurd position to take.

Democrats will have you think that because Republicans aren't actively attacking the wealthy, that they don't care about anyone else but the wealthy.

Democrats will have us think that, because Republicans demonstrate it constantly through their rhetoric and actions. The problem isn't that Republicans aren't actively attacking the wealthy. The problem is that they actively advocate for the wealthy, at the expense of everyone else - under the absurd guise that they are helping everyone else become rich.

When in fact, Republicans are simply not engaging in socio-economic class categorization at all.

You're better than this. Of course they are. They do it all the time. I'll give you the perfect example in a second.

The real irony is that multi-millionaire Democratic politicians have somehow convinced people that they are a magical exclusion to that "wealthiest 1%" even as they vote for pay raises every year and fly around on their corporate jets.

Keep in mind that me criticizing Republican politicians does not equate to me defending Democatic politicians.

You're complaining about capitalism, not conservatism.

No, I'm complaining about how politicians (at this moment in time, primarily Republicans) artificially rig our capitalistic system to favor one particular group of players, at the expense of the others.

It wasn't "capitalism" that let the Pharmaceutical Industry write Medicare Part D. That was Republicans.

Redistribution of wealth is not the answer to everybody not having the same opportunity.

And there you have it. The favored Republican artificial construct in the ongoing "class war". As has already been pointed out to you - if the federal government is all about wealth redistribution, all evidence available points to them redistributing it from the 99% to the 1%.

Every year that goes by, the gap widens. If the federal government is a massive redistribution of wealth machine, why isn't the wealth gap shrinking? Why is it accelerating in the opposite direction?

Taking from people who worked hard and giving it to people who didn't is not a solution.

Wait, I thought that Republicans didn't engage in broad stereotypes and socio-economic warfare?

What the F do you think you are doing there with that comment?

The federal government isn't taking from people who worked hard and giving it to people who didn't. And no one is suggesting that. The federal government is taking from the only people that have money (how do you take money from people that don't have any?), and using it to provide barely adequate services to people who mostly work hard (and in many cases, harder than those who are "successful").

This whole "wealth redistribution" angle is such complete bullshit. Most of your tax money is spent on three things: defense, social security and medicare. How can you say with a straight face that the federal government is a wealth redistribution engine?

Despite no evidence of wealth redistribution actually occuring.

Giving people no incentive to work because the government will hand them everything they need for free is not a viable long-term solution.

Thanks for my daily dose of anti-communism propaganda. It's probably a good thing that no one is suggesting that we hand "them" (who are "them" if you aren't engaging in socio-economic based class warfare?) everything they need for free.

While nobody will ever have the same opportunity, we can strive to give everyone as much opportunity as possible.

We *could*. We *don't*.

Right. Which is why we should strive to give as many people as many opportunities as possible.

We should. Maybe you shouldn't be supporting a party that isn't doing any of that.

Nobody is arguing that where we are today is the perfect jumping off point for everyone to have the exact same opportunity.

No, you made the broad statement that people aren't successful because they don't work hard enough at.

What, generalizations against the Republican party are OK but generalizations against the Democratic party aren't?

You were alleging that Republicans don't make broad and inaccurate generalizations. Trying the "Democrats do it too!!" angle isn't going to win you any points there.

News flash. Democrats lay off people too! That's a function of capitalism and economics, not politics. And guess what? Those evil corporations that Republicans advocate hire and provide paychecks for FAR more people than they lay off.

Yes, those evil corporations hire more people than they lay off. That has nothing to do with the point. The point was simply that there is a very real reason why "they" think that Republicans are "evil", because they very publically advocate for "the Man", that has been routinely crushing families finacially over the past few years.

Going back to the example set by my previous employer, by the 10th round of layoffs, the "survivors" stopped feeling "lucky" to still have a job, and resented management nearly as much as those that were let go. It didn't matter that management was still giving us (part of) our paychecks. The stress of coming to work everyday, wondering if it would be your last, never seemed worth it.

In other words, it's been a long time since "provide me with a tiny paycheck relative to the amount of money my work is actually generating for you" was enough to overcome the downside of watching your friends lives get bodyslammed financially for no other reason than a previous manager happened to assign you to the wrong project.

No, it has to do with capitalism and economics. Bad stuff happens to good people. Life sucks.

At least you are starting to acknowledge that.

It's not the fault of Republicans that businesses want to make money.

I didn't blame it on Republicans. I blamed it on the current Corporate Culture. But most importantly, I took blame off of the people that you explicitly blamed (the employees that got laid off), who are the people that are apparently having massive amounts of wealth redistributed to them.

Yeah, but why are you blaming only Republicans?

I'm not blaming Republicans. I'm pointing out that you were blaming the people that get forced into shitty circumstances. And I'm blaming Republicans for fostering that nonsense in you as a way to turn you against "them" when it comes time to vote.

Why aren't you blaming wealthy Democrats flying around in their corporate jets?

Because Democrats aren't broadly blaming the unemployed for being unemployed. They haven't turned that asinine concept into a plank of their Party platform.

Why are you still buying appliances and cars from corporate America instead of growing your own food and riding around in a horse and buggy?

Ah, this tired response. Whether or not Corporate America blows donkey dick is not dependent on whether or not I buy a washing machine from Home Depot.

You're lashing out at a system that has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans, and pinning blame on a single political party for the weaknesses of a capitalistic modern society?

First, the system has *everything* to do with Democratic and Republican politicians. Second, I'm not pinning blame on a single political party. I was addressing your assertion that these people are themselves to blame.

And I'm pointing out why these same people think that Republicans are "evil", because they are the ones that are trying to perpetuate that myth (that they are themselves to blame), and that they are intentionally perpetuating that myth on behalf of their Corporate campaign donors.

Advocating for them out of the goodness of their hearts, or because they need the votes? We can play the "intentions" game all day long, and in the end we can't prove anything either way. The only thing we can prove is cold hard statistics, and those statistics show that conservatives are more charitable.

As Zarathud pointed out, your definition of "charitable" is very narrowly defined to yield the result that you seek. Conservatives (who tend to be more religious) tend to donate more money to charity (most likely their church). I wouldn't be surprised by that, I would expect it.

But I don't think that it's a particular good benchmark for who "cares more about the downtrodden" (which was what we were talking about).

When it comes to politicians, I don't think any of them are genuine. When it comes to liberals vs. conservatives (the People), I think that the picture is just a bit bigger than who writes the biggest checks (for the reasons Zarathud suggests).

There's a pretty good chance that we will vote the same way in November, but I'll be honest - it's thoroughly depressing that you've so willingly pulled the wool back down over your eyes in the past three years. I can get massive disappointment in Obama. I can get holding my nose and voting against him. But to just go right back to parroting the same, tired Republican propaganda, as if you never saw the man behind the curtain?

I don't get it.

[msduncan]

<snip all the nonsensical bullshit out>

You guys have been moving the goal posts since I arrived at this forum in 2000/2001. What used to be conservative you now consider wacko. What used to be moderate, you now consider conservative.

The damn goal posts aren't even in this freakin stadium anymore. You sold the franchise to a new flipping city.

This forum is an amazing example of hive-mind. A cluster of core people relentlessly ridicule and attack beliefs that are not in perfect alignment with their own. This inevitably results in one of two outcomes with people: either they move toward the hive-mind (usually unintentionally and gradually) or they leave and stop posting.

And before you start up with the 'msduncan is playing victim' shit, I'm proud to say I haven't budged in the decade I've been here, and frankly I think it bugs the shit out of some of the hive-mind.

[GreenGoo]

And before you start up with the 'msduncan is playing victim' shit, I'm proud to say I haven't budged in the decade I've been here, and frankly I think it bugs the shit out of some of the hive-mind.

Yeah, you hold your ground despite what "the man" here at OO thinks. Take that, "the man".

YK's comments essentially blame the downturn of the economy on the american people not working hard enough. And that's a republican talking point.

It's a wonder things aren't burning yet.

[Combustible Lemur]

<snip all the nonsensical bullshit out>

You guys have been moving the goal posts since I arrived at this forum in 2000/2001. What used to be conservative you now consider wacko. What used to be moderate, you now consider conservative.

The damn goal posts aren't even in this freakin stadium anymore. You sold the franchise to a new flipping city.

This forum is an amazing example of hive-mind. A cluster of core people relentlessly ridicule and attack beliefs that are not in perfect alignment with their own. This inevitably results in one of two outcomes with people: either they move toward the hive-mind (usually unintentionally and gradually) or they leave and stop posting.

And before you start up with the 'msduncan is playing victim' shit, I'm proud to say I haven't budged in the decade I've been here, and frankly I think it bugs the shit out of some of the hive-mind.

I all I can say is mirror dude, mirror.

And to a certain extent the goalposts moving is the nature of conservative reality. 30 yrs ago a smoking restaurant was conservative now its extreme. Open homosexuality was extreme, now it's the norm. That's the nature of conservative vs. progressive. Remember prior to the civil rights movement, segregation was a conservative ideal.



Do you think people can be both conservative and champion progressive causes like social equality?

I think that's the difference, to be "conservative" you have to be wholly conservative, religious, capitalist, libertarian, anti drug, pro life, anti big gov. If even one of those varies, Conservatives like you shout LIBERAL! You think Obama is a socialist! The man is centrist as they come. Since the world is changing deep conservatives, by staying put, are drifting out to sea.

[geezer]

I'm proud to say I haven't budged in the decade I've been here, and frankly I think it bugs the shit out of some of the hive-mind.

*Anyone* who would say that their views have been immutable over a decade (any decade) would bug the shit out of me. I'd be embarrassed, not proud, to make that claim. It speaks to either a certain lack of intellectual curiosity or a certain arrogant certitude - either one of which is far scarier than a staunch conservative or a staunch liberal.

[El Guapo]

And the House addresses a critical issue in these rough times, voting to prevent people from accessing welfare money at strip clubs.

Is this really an endemic problem, or is the House saying something about how they view welfare recipients?

[RunningMn9]

And before you start up with the 'msduncan is playing victim' shit, I'm proud to say I haven't budged in the decade I've been here, and frankly I think it bugs the shit out of some of the hive-mind.

Why are you proud of that? You don't think that it's pretty unlikely that you were correct about everything that you thought a decade ago? An additional decade of life experience hasn't revealed any new insights to you or provided any additional perspective on one topic or another related to your political philosophy?

I'm not sure that I would view intellectual rigidity as a virtue.

Which isn't to say that intellectual flexibility always is. But a decade is a long time. To be proud of not adjusting your viewpoint(s) at all in that time frame seems odd to me.

I suppose I am proud to say that over the past decade, I've stopped believing some wrong things. And while my future self may have concluded that I moved on to believe different wrong things, I am still comforted by the fact that I have become more flexible in my thinking, being guided more by fact than belief. As much as I can anyway.

But I'll never understand pride in never admitting when you are wrong. Unless you are foolish enough to believe that you haven't been wrong yet?

[hepcat]

We do not need smaller government or bigger government. We need better government. Better government will entail some parts becoming smaller, and other parts becoming bigger.

What my main man Freezer just said.

+1

I'm proud to say I haven't budged in the decade I've been here, and frankly I think it bugs the shit out of some of the hive-mind.

*Anyone* who would say that their views have been immutable over a decade (any decade) would bug the shit out of me. I'd be embarrassed, not proud, to make that claim. It speaks to either a certain lack of intellectual curiosity or a certain arrogant certitude - either one of which is far scarier than a staunch conservative or a staunch liberal.

The zekester used to say the exact same thing. I'm just sayin'...